1. Film: The Spill Director: Tim Mangini Release Year: 2010
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film was the possibility that the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico could have been prevented. The film discussed BP's major accidents leading up to this catastrophe such as the Texas City BP oil refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, and the toppling over of Thunderhorse. Cutting costs, greed, and the uncontrolled company growth were the major factors that lead to these disasters. John Brown became CEO of BP in the late 1980's and he propelled the company into the oil business by buying six major companies including Amaco. In two years he tripled the company's value, but towards the end of his buying spree he was pressured to cut costs. At this point, operational excellence had decreased and the risks became overwhelming. The Texas City refinery had been originally built by Amaco in 1934, and was in extremely bad shape with rotted out columns, and rusted parts, however major upgrades were continually post-poned in order to save money. The explosion of this refinery in 1995 was the biggest industrial accident in decades and was a result of unsafe parts, failure of alarms to sound, and lack of flare to handle the emergency. It was proven that merely 150,000 dollars could have prevented the explosion by investing in up-grades. No BP official was charged with a crime although there were many fatalities. One year later in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, failure to remove sediment from pipes and receive proper pipe inspections lead to an oil leak of 260,000 gallons. With these catastrophes seemingly behind BP, they figured that deep water drilling was the next step. The company created an enormous oil platform known as Thunderhorse, which toppled over not because of hurricane Dennis but due to careless mistakes by engineers. Tony Hayward's mission when he became CEO in 2007 was to fix the company's problems by investing 14 billion dollars to upgrade operations and increase safety. However, he became pressured to cut costs again which ultimately led to the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico in 2010, only ten days after Obama's speech about expanding off shore drilling. Apparently, BP cost about 20 million dollars while designing “the well from hell” which enabled the spill. These events convince people that they were not just mistakes or accidents, but a result of deliberate, careless cost-cutting by BP corporation. If the company had invested money back into the company for upgrades and increased safety measures, the oil spill in the gulf clearly could have been avoided.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? The film was in documentary form, therefore the argument was made through interviews and media clips. Workers, family members of workers, scientists, and other experts shared their opinions of BP and the company's actions, while the narration provided additional scientific facts and insight into the politics of the corporation. Detailed accounts of each disaster were presented, with information regarding number of fatalities, history of each site, and specific engineering problems for example. The film did not have much emotional appeal except when the fatalities that could have easily been avoided were discussed.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? The film highlighted almost all of these different sustainability problems, but focused mainly on the economic choices of BP that resulted in the oil spill.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The most persuasive part of the film was when the underlying cause of the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico was presented. The cost-cutting in the development of the oil rig was a clear indication that the spill could have been prevented if the company took the time and money to fix the problems that cause the previous “accidents”. This part really convinced the viewer of the central argument of the film.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The part of the film I was not compelled by was the reason for cost cutting. The film discussed that the CEO's all wanted to build up the company, however what was the real underlying reason for doing this? The viewer is left to wonder whether it was for personal profit of the higher ups in the corporation, or maybe just to quickly become the number one oil company in the world. The repetitive and deliberate decisions that resulted in these horrible disasters makes the viewer question how this company continued to be so reckless.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? The film was not graphic and did not contain inappropriate material, however I would not recommend the film for audiences younger than high school aged individuals. The material was presented through narration and interviewing, so a certain level of intellect is required in order to fully correlate and understand the underlying argument of the film.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? Additional information regarding the effects of oil spills on the environment could have been added to enhance the film's environmental educational value. The film did a great job of explaining the source of each catastrophe, however it did not provide insight into how the oil spills directly affected the surrounding area.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The kinds of action suggested by the film was mostly legal action. The film mentioned that after the explosion at the Texas City refinery, the injured and the families of the deceased were awarded money. There is also a ban being reviewed by the government that may prohibit BP from drilling for seven years. Extreme and drastic corrective measures should obviously be taken by the company itself to fix its problems and prevent future incidents from occurring.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references. The end of the film briefly mentioned that BP may be banned from drilling for seven years, but that the notion was being reviewed by congress, so I was interested in seeking out more information about this claim. According to a BBC news article published on July 15th, 2010, a US natural resources congressional committee established measures that could prevent BP from new offshore drilling for seven years. The proposed law would ban companies with poor safety records from offshore oil exploration permits. It would not single out BP exclusively, but apply to any company that experienced ten or more deaths in the previous seven years1. Five months later, President Obama put a halt on all offshore oil drilling by all oil companies2. However, an article from The Observer published just a couple of weeks ago states that BP has been given permission by the Obama administration to bid for new drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico3.
Film Annotation #2
1. Film: The Spill
Director: Tim Mangini
Release Year: 2010
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film was the possibility that the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico could have been prevented. The film discussed BP's major accidents leading up to this catastrophe such as the Texas City BP oil refinery explosion in 2005, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, and the toppling over of Thunderhorse. Cutting costs, greed, and the uncontrolled company growth were the major factors that lead to these disasters.
John Brown became CEO of BP in the late 1980's and he propelled the company into the oil business by buying six major companies including Amaco. In two years he tripled the company's value, but towards the end of his buying spree he was pressured to cut costs. At this point, operational excellence had decreased and the risks became overwhelming. The Texas City refinery had been originally built by Amaco in 1934, and was in extremely bad shape with rotted out columns, and rusted parts, however major upgrades were continually post-poned in order to save money. The explosion of this refinery in 1995 was the biggest industrial accident in decades and was a result of unsafe parts, failure of alarms to sound, and lack of flare to handle the emergency. It was proven that merely 150,000 dollars could have prevented the explosion by investing in up-grades. No BP official was charged with a crime although there were many fatalities. One year later in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, failure to remove sediment from pipes and receive proper pipe inspections lead to an oil leak of 260,000 gallons. With these catastrophes seemingly behind BP, they figured that deep water drilling was the next step. The company created an enormous oil platform known as Thunderhorse, which toppled over not because of hurricane Dennis but due to careless mistakes by engineers.
Tony Hayward's mission when he became CEO in 2007 was to fix the company's problems by investing 14 billion dollars to upgrade operations and increase safety. However, he became pressured to cut costs again which ultimately led to the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico in 2010, only ten days after Obama's speech about expanding off shore drilling. Apparently, BP cost about 20 million dollars while designing “the well from hell” which enabled the spill. These events convince people that they were not just mistakes or accidents, but a result of deliberate, careless cost-cutting by BP corporation. If the company had invested money back into the company for upgrades and increased safety measures, the oil spill in the gulf clearly could have been avoided.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film was in documentary form, therefore the argument was made through interviews and media clips. Workers, family members of workers, scientists, and other experts shared their opinions of BP and the company's actions, while the narration provided additional scientific facts and insight into the politics of the corporation. Detailed accounts of each disaster were presented, with information regarding number of fatalities, history of each site, and specific engineering problems for example. The film did not have much emotional appeal except when the fatalities that could have easily been avoided were discussed.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film highlighted almost all of these different sustainability problems, but focused mainly on the economic choices of BP that resulted in the oil spill.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most persuasive part of the film was when the underlying cause of the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico was presented. The cost-cutting in the development of the oil rig was a clear indication that the spill could have been prevented if the company took the time and money to fix the problems that cause the previous “accidents”. This part really convinced the viewer of the central argument of the film.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part of the film I was not compelled by was the reason for cost cutting. The film discussed that the CEO's all wanted to build up the company, however what was the real underlying reason for doing this? The viewer is left to wonder whether it was for personal profit of the higher ups in the corporation, or maybe just to quickly become the number one oil company in the world. The repetitive and deliberate decisions that resulted in these horrible disasters makes the viewer question how this company continued to be so reckless.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film was not graphic and did not contain inappropriate material, however I would not recommend the film for audiences younger than high school aged individuals. The material was presented through narration and interviewing, so a certain level of intellect is required in order to fully correlate and understand the underlying argument of the film.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Additional information regarding the effects of oil spills on the environment could have been added to enhance the film's environmental educational value. The film did a great job of explaining the source of each catastrophe, however it did not provide insight into how the oil spills directly affected the surrounding area.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The kinds of action suggested by the film was mostly legal action. The film mentioned that after the explosion at the Texas City refinery, the injured and the families of the deceased were awarded money. There is also a ban being reviewed by the government that may prohibit BP from drilling for seven years. Extreme and drastic corrective measures should obviously be taken by the company itself to fix its problems and prevent future incidents from occurring.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.
The end of the film briefly mentioned that BP may be banned from drilling for seven years, but that the notion was being reviewed by congress, so I was interested in seeking out more information about this claim. According to a BBC news article published on July 15th, 2010, a US natural resources congressional committee established measures that could prevent BP from new offshore drilling for seven years. The proposed law would ban companies with poor safety records from offshore oil exploration permits. It would not single out BP exclusively, but apply to any company that experienced ten or more deaths in the previous seven years1. Five months later, President Obama put a halt on all offshore oil drilling by all oil companies2. However, an article from The Observer published just a couple of weeks ago states that BP has been given permission by the Obama administration to bid for new drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico3.
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10642556
2. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-01/politics/obama.gulf.drilling_1_drilling-rig-oil-drilling-gulf-spill?_s=PM:POLITICS
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/16/bp-allowed-back-into-bidding-for-gulf-oil-drilling-rights